You can see that in discussions online, too, including here. There’s a general vibe of “the Israelis knew what they were forcing the Palestinians to do, so they deserved it”
ETA: Should’ve scrolled down to your next post where you posted an example of exactly that.
that’s what i wanted to know, thanks. stay safe man.
What you could take from it is an understanding of why the 2 state solution has never worked out. Well, part of it. Because those arbitrary lines in the second and third map never represnted anything other than some sort of a compromise decided upon by people who aren’t Jewish or Arabs.
It’s a noble idea and it might have worked if not a million terrible decisions (many if not the majority by my government), but it is not some morally just thing, just an arbitrary compromise plan.
If it’s by religion of the controlling government, maps 2-4 are close to accurate. Would need another color for map 1. Your point not about dictatorships in Jordan and Egypt not being great for people now known as Palestinians is well taken.
Even in that useless scenario, the 4th one would be wrong. It shows places like Jericho and anything on the Jordanian border as Israeli control for virtually no reason. Or you can argue that no where in the West Bank is truly under Palestinian control as Israel army is always looming and that would be a somewhat fair assertion.
What’s the mix of Palestinian civilians, Fatah authority, settlers and IDF near the Jordan River?
I’m not sure government religion is useless. A lot of the hatred is religious based. It seems like many of the players want land controlled by their religion identified tribe. Gazan people would likely be happier if they were reannexed by Egypt and they would probably be treated better. I’m aware Egypt doesn’t want Gaza.
I think that did happen
Have you heard of Black September? Palestinians were massacared by Jordan.
Gazans were not allowed to have any political activities under Egypt and anyone with ties to communist or Muslim Brothers movement would be executed.
This thinking is actually very common with the Israeli right-wing, saying stuff like “You have 21 countries we have 1” “Send them all the Egypt/Jordan”, but it’s very wrong. Palestinians do have nationalist desire that are not Pan-Arabian.
Eugene Puryear is the speaker. He is also a Sputnik News podcast host who recently took on the role of Eritrea dictatorship spokesperson.
https://twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/1711379387243692113
I don’t understand why this Noah Smith dude is popular on Twitter. I’ve even seen him posted here a few times. I have never read anything from him that wasn’t the most baby-brained centrist goo goo ga ga imaginable. A lot of what he writes doesn’t even rise to the level of wrong, it’s just inane. Case in point here, where he proposes a “three state solution” where Israel, Gaza and the West Bank all become separate states. Gaza would do well because it has nice beaches and historical sites of interest and could become a tourist destination. That’s what he wrote.
Here’s my proposal for Israel/Palestine: We invent a new religion halfway between Judaism and Islam, where everyone agrees Mohammed was a prophet but that the Quran wasn’t written by God and needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Everyone converts to this religion and then they will all get along and be excellent to each other.
I never heard of him. If he’s highly regarded I get you. If he’s some freelancer writer trying to make a name for himself - i’ve read worse stuff.
Would that solve the problem? If we woke up tomorrow and everyone in the region was Mormon, would the Israeli settlers give up their homes? Would the Palestinians accept their lot?
He’s mainly an expert on economics and Asia. Don’t think he has much in-depth knowledge on Israeli-Palestine issues, but he’s a genuinely smart guy, quite liberal but also vocally anti-left. He’s kinda like Matt Yglesias with a focus on economics. He’s well respected for liberal economics and used to have a Bloomberg column, but I think he’s transitioned to substack.
I think the basic point that a disconnected state doesn’t work is correct, which is why I’ve suggested a three-state solution in the past. I just don’t accompany all the other stuff he says.
The primary criticism in the post you cite is that Smith doesn’t consider a “one state, all Isreal” solution something that people actually advocate, when (apparently) some right-wing Israelis do. It’s certainly not the sort of “solution” I have ever seen raised in any international context.
This is the worst kind of conflict for our times where nuanced debate is impossible. When there are no obvious good guys and bad guys it makes for an incredibly complex situation with no easy answers. Our current level of discourse simply can’t accommodate a conflict where both sides are partly right and both sides are partly wrong. Our society can barely get the Ukraine conflict right and it’s maybe the most obvious good guys vs bad guys in 100 years.
This will be terrible for everyone, tons of innocent people will die on both sides and it almost certainly will solve nothing.
It’s just such a hopeless situation.
I don’t claim to know the whole history and I’m sure there have been bad people on both sides. But if you just take a snapshot of the recent past, those instituting apartheid against Palestinians seem pretty bad
What’s interesting to me, is that some of the very same people who advocate for Ukraine are not willing to defend Palestinians and are in full support of Israel. I don’t get that
Yep, on first point. I agree it is one where nuanced debate is impossible (but there are many conflicts/issues like that in this day and age) but there does seem to be some obviously bad actors on both sides (again the case with many conflicts).
Russia isn’t a displaced nation of people who have been subjected to millennia of persecution including the greatest genocide in history.
That what’s makes it so intractable. You have two groups of people both of whom have faced indescribable atrocities.